BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

8 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai110Delhi70Bangalore38Kolkata24Allahabad21Jaipur18Ahmedabad15Agra14Chandigarh10Hyderabad8Indore7Surat6Raipur5Jodhpur5Rajkot3Nagpur2Lucknow2Chennai1Amritsar1Pune1

Key Topics

Addition to Income8Bogus Purchases7Section 234A6Section 143(3)5Reopening of Assessment5TDS5Disallowance3Section 133(6)2Section 142(1)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

2
Section 432
Limitation/Time-bar2

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 374/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 234A

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 375/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 234A

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 376/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 234A

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 372/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 234A

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

K & R RAIL ENGINEERING LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 373/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 234A

bogus purchases was the reason to believe as per the satisfactory note which was supplemented to the assessee and no addition was made on the same. Thus, not allowing the eligible TDS credits, Advance Tax and Self Assessment Tax paid is incorrect as the addition pertaining to the reason to believe was not made. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 43

234C is not correct and the appellant denies its liability for the levy of interest amounts. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the aforesaid grounds as the occasion may require.” Page 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture of sponge iron